PRATT Party and Free for All

Dock, Like I said, back then when that was the topic was when you should have supported your blind assertions above; not here. Likely you contributed to that debate about as little substantive input as you are contributing to this thread. Get a life, man.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Oh please Buz, like your bullshit "musings" with absolutely no backing in anything other than your adhereance to mythology are substantive. ah yes, the internet tough guy approach.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Before I address your post allow me a short prayer: Thank God this is in Free For All. Amen No, by disregard I mean disregard. You're entirely free to disbelieve me without wasting my time. I'm not a clergyman either. If you tell me the Queen is 206. And I point out that she's wearing a shash that says "Born in 1926"; and your next statement is "She'll be 207 in April." That's disregarding. If you say "You're full of it. I read it in the papers this morning. The Queen was born in 1804." That's disbelieving (and with a better retort then you usually offer.) This is one of the ad hoc statements you consistently supply and present as Buzsaw Hypothesis. Where does this come from? Going to my example where 5,600 needed to be accounted for; 5,600 years could not be gradually made up for in 4,350 years. So, in your "hypothesis" how much older do the trees carbon date to that we need to account for? And if it's a number so small that we can hide it in 4,350 years of calibration curve what does advancing such a minimal discrepancy gain you? Fine, there are trees that survived. From my point of view all of them survived. Almost as if the flood never happened. So we're in agreement. Why? What demonstrable evidence do you have for this? The non-sentence "If you recall, my position is that since there was allegedly no Solar System until after plant life (including trees) were created (day 3)." is in the English translation of the Bible? Would you mind telling me where? See that word "since" It requires a predicate. Since x, y. You neglected to state y. Since no solar system before trees what? Oh! you mean the point you didn't get round to making is in the Bible.Ditto in your next non-sentence "Consider also that having no Solar System, no sun and moon to determine length of days." There are parts missing. I never know what you're going to come out with next so I'm at a loss to fill in your blanks.I can ascribe to neither as they lack meaning. You never got around to completing the contention. You made a wordy version of "Well, because" I surely can't debunk something you didn't get round to.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

quote:

---

Hi other Doc. Where were you back when the evidence was debated to debunk the imperical evidence cited? I don't remember of any significant imput on your part in those debates.

---

But I had significant input, and I can say that no significant evidence for chariot remains was produced. Some of the evidence (if true - we are dealing with untrustworthy, biased and incompetent sources) was even inconsistent with the chariot hypothesis (the alleged presence of iron in the remains - an Egyptian chariot of the period would have used small amounts of bronze and no other metal).And we saw that the attempt to rewrite Egyptian history - required to match the alleged date of the wheels - was an utter disaster, produced by people unable to even accurately deal with a popular book.Since then I have asked for the evidence that wasn't provided and got no reply at all.

Thanks for the reply, Buz. Admittedly, I have less knowledge than you when discussing the Exodus event and evidence. In the limited reading I've done on it, however, I found the "evidence"...wanting. I understand this is a free for all, but as I can see from the past threads on this board, it's all been hashed out multiple times, so I see no need to go through it again. Rest assured, though, your contention of my complete and total ignorance on this subject is mistaken. Let's set aside, for the moment, whether there was actually a real, historical exodus from Egypt, or if the walls of Jericho were actually brought down with the trumpets of the Israelites, etc, etc, etc...(insert your questionable historical biblical scenario here) How, exactly, when presented with the mountains of evidence, can you extend the (tiny) possibility of the above events to then conclude that the flood must have been an actual event?Seems like you're reaching here a bit, to me.Have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : grammar

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hi again Apothecus, The same way that finding the ruins of Troy proves all the Grecian myths are true. Perhaps Buz needs to read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 before stating what it says. Each of the methods correlate with the others, and the only place they become weak or questionable is when the reach the limits of their methodology.Enjoy.

---

Hi Buz
Have you found the evidence for these two statements yet?

quote:

---

The change would not be sudden and noticeable:

​

2) The level of 14C in the biosphere would gradually increase downline from the time of the flood.

---

• What was the concentration of ¹⁴C the day before the flood?
• At what rate did the ¹⁴C concentrations in the atmosphere change?
• What would be the maximum rate at which ¹⁴C concentrations in the atmosphere could change to go unnoticed?
• How did the trees not record a different number of years between the ¹⁴C dating and the annual growth rings?

I'm depending on you to answer these questions for me. My glaring ignorance is causing members of my family are developing pterygium*. I swear, my mum is almost a bat. *I glare in the UVB.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Hey lyx2no. He also has to explain how those trees lived through that massive deluge.So, Buz, without spewing incessant BS about how such and such tropical swamp tree lived after being submerged for such and such amount of time blah blah blah...can you tell us, Buz, short of amazing magick, how Bristlecone Pines, English Oaks, et al showed anything, ANYTHING, except exceptional deadness after remaining underwater for the better part of a year?Even a, "I'm not sure, but it'll all be revealed to me in the afterlife," would be preferable to your endless string of "maybes", "perhapses" and "what ifs". It's tiresome to read. How can you bring yourself to type it?

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

The problem is that flood never happened, it is a tribal myth, but some folks have to believe in it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.For any evidence against the flood they come up with hypothetical cases, what I call "what ifs," that let them go on believing in the flood myth. They are unwilling or unable to consider that the evidence really shows the flood didn't happen as described.That these "what ifs" eventually stretch out to impossibility doesn't seem to matter. What seems to be important is that they can come up with something -- anything -- that will let them continue on in their belief cycle.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Lyx2. I've had your message on my computer desktop since you posted it for a reminder. My glaring ignorance is causing me to devop pterygium, or something like that. I don't swear, but, unless I can say something I consider sensible I am mum........anyhow, this is so far the best I can bring up for a response. I suggest you look the whole page over and go at countering specific problems you may see in it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hey, bud, I already offered my 2 cents worth on that some place in this thread. Have you been following along?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buzsaw explained in an earlier post that trees would benefit from a low ¹⁴C, high O₂, low NaCl (The sodium presumably. He didn't mention cholesterol - C₂₇H₄₅OH.) "ecosystem" making the trees hardy enough to survive. I responded to this that trees don't like high O₂ and he rescinded the high O₂ being good for trees, but this did not effect his position about the trees being made more hardy by the "ecosystem".It must be nice to have an argument so firmly based in reality that it is completely unaffected by having all the evidence for it invalidated.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

I'm not sure where you got these, but... The atmospheric variation problem was identified by de Vries in 1958, shortly after C14 dating was invented. A calibration curve has been worked out in 1 year increments back to AD 1650, and in 10 year increments back to about 12,500 years ago. That curve corrects for atmospheric variation from any source. Other calibration curves extend much farther back, but the one I am most familiar with is based on bristlecone pines, and it goes back only about 12,500 years. But that is enough to demonstrate the accuracy of the method.I believe I've posted this to you in the past. That you keep bringing up the same issue, which I have refuted, means that either you don't believe me, that you don't believe the calibration curve is accurate, or you are just looking for any excuse to deny what science has found in favor of your a priori religious belief. We know that too. That is why we correct for what is called isotopic fractionation with a C13 reading. We want accurate dates, and work very hard to get them!A recent project I ran encountered human bone with a C13 reading of about -13, when the expected is about -25. We also ran the stable isotope N15 and from a comparison of the C13 and N15 determined that this individual had a diet about 92% made up of marine organisms, primarily marine mammals. The percentage of marine organisms in the diet is an important variable in calibrating the age of a sample! Why would you assume we would ignore that variable? Or, why would you believe some lying creationist website that suggests that we would ignore that variable? Do you really think we don't want our dates to be as accurate as possible?When you can understand all of these details of radiocarbon dating, Grasshopper, you will be able to discuss the radiocarbon method intelligently. As it is you are scavenging whatever you can--whatever agrees with your a priori beliefs--no matter how silly or how wrong it is, in an effort to shore up those beliefs.Why don't you, for once, apply yourself to just one small area of science and try to learn as much as you can about it? I'll be glad to help you. You might be surprised by the results.Or is that what you are afraid of?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You need to reconsider what you consider sensible; and if you're Mum where's my allowance? That's not how it works Buz. Firstly, you didn't even send me to the page you took the quote from. I shouldn't have to go looking for your quotes. Secondly, it is not mine to argue against a web site. Thirdly, did you look over the site yourself. Not to conspiracy nut on you, Buz, but did you notice that the page you quote was in a different font then the rest of the site. I've got a sneaking suspicion that the fundamentalist who snuck it in got his Jesus points up front.Don't use an argument you can't understand. It called lying.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

I provided the NDT Resource Center link from which I got it. Did you read the whole page, as I suggested, Coyote? Er, I am trying to learn. I'm not lying down and acting dead. The NDT Resource Center appeared to me to be a scientific professional source that should immensely impress eminent members.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.